Since around 2012, J.K. Rowling had been in the process of developing a stage production set within the world of Harry Potter. Initially set up to explore Harry's years under the Dursleys, Harry Potter and the Cursed Child will instead chronicle Harry struggling to be an overworked employee at the Ministry of Magic while also being a husband and father of three. Furthermore, the play will also explore his youngest son Albus as he tries to go through life as part of a family legacy he's not comfortable being a part of.

They announced the actors to play Harry, Ron, and Hermione and it raised a great many eyebrows. Playing Harry will be Jamie Parker (The History Boys, Valkyrie), playing Ron will be Paul Thornley (Les Miserables, Minions), and playing Hermione will be Noma Dumezweni (Doctor Who, A Raisin in the Sun). While Jamie's casting seems to have been accepted, some were miffed about Paul not being a natural redhead. But Noma's casting is the one that has people talking because for a rather obvious reason.

To be told in two parts, the play will premiere on July 30, 2016 at the Palace Theatre in London with at least four previews in May. The play is written by Jack Thorne (The Fades, This is England '86 and '88) working off of Rowling's story and directed by John Tiffany (Black Watch, Once).

I'll have to see them made up, but at the moment there seems to be three less reasons to worry about bothering to see this...(and, no, not because of any skin color issue, I'm just not a fan of the casting).

Ummm... I'm pretty sure Rowling was simply saying that she never defined Hermione's skin color, that it really shouldn't be an issue when it came to who would play the character, and was ultimately expressing her enthusiasm for Noma's casting, Eric.

I was trying to be funny, and, again, thought it was Rowling showing off. (Fans don't really like her nowadays, as much as they used to.)At this point I could say it was a sunny day, and be accused of promoting UV radiation.

At best, I was trying to say that it put a completely different spin on Hermione's personal objection to the Malfoys' bigotry against half-human parentry--Which, in the Wizard-verse, is "the" racial issue, leaving aside the various intolerant social persecutions of giants, house-elves and centaurs. (Which also becomes one of Hermione's pet social causes, which was meant to be humorous if it didn't have some perceived deeper motivation about why she would be so caring toward poor, suffering enslaved house-elves.)Giving her a "real" racial issue as well may help the point, but it distracts from the intent of the book--Since wizards are all over the world, they don't relatively care which countries each other are in or from. It's nice, but a little too much social ornamentation, even if it was the National Theater's big progressive idea and not Rowling's.

(And if you're accusing me of thinking that any statement JK makes is now evil and showoff and immediately to be discounted just because it's her, I'd say a pot is calling the kettle you-know-what right about now...Okay, now try to come up with a reason why I just made another "wrong" or "evil" or "lunatic" post just for posting anything. )

Ben wrote:No, you made a racist comment, and when asked to clarify it, made another, really ignorant one! To say what you did was stupid, dumb and uncalled for.

Oh, that. Well, it might have been playing on the US's stereotyped perception of the UK as lily-white in spirit as well as color, ie. of their being visibly racist towards Europeans, East Indians and people of African/Caribbean/Aborigine color. If we had Archie Bunker, it was only because you had Alf Garnett first.If the joke didn't translate over the Atlantic (or north across the border, or down to the upside-down parts), well, now you know.